The farce of 'homophobia': from the Gulag to the pathologization of dissent

Within the framework of the interpellation of the Minister of Livestock, Alfredo Fratti, regarding the controversial purchase of land in honor of José Mujica, Parliament—the House of Laws, soon to celebrate two centuries of history—became the stage for a new disgraceful episode.

Unfortunately, outbursts and insults have become understandable in an era where civilized dialogue and measured argumentation are scarce. However, although never justifiable, it is worth remembering that maintaining composure in front of an interlocutor who disregards logic, resorts to unproven defamation, and appeals to ad hominem attacks is a virtue within reach of very few men.

What was interesting, however, was that a common insult, as reprehensible as any other, ended up serving as a pretext for a new circus-like spectacle inflated to the absurd: the new progressive left quickly appeared, spitting out the word homophobia everywhere, demanding criminalization.

You may also be interested in...

The semantic trap of phobias and hate crimes

As long as there is freedom of thought and expression, repelling homosexuality or obesity is legitimate. What can't be done is to pathologize dissent, appealing to a term that belongs to the field of psychiatry and indicating that aversion implies some kind of phobia.

Even more serious: the ideological engineering of the new left has reached the dystopian point of not only pathologizing dissent, but also criminalizing it. Today, even expressing rejection of certain behaviors is considered a crime. A clear example of leftist totalitarianism.

The left is homophobic

The great paradox is that, if there is a political movement that has persecuted homosexuals, not on a symbolic level, but in the most brutal and material sense of state repression, that movement has been the left.

Karl Marx describing homosexuals as "worse than pederasts," Stalin describing them as a "pathological bourgeois vice," Mao Tse Tung stating that they were a "capitalist perversion," Fidel Castro declaring that "a homosexual can't be a revolutionary," or Che Guevara sending them to labor camps under the promise that "work will make them men."

These were not mere rhetorical outbursts: in Cuba, under the Castro regime, homosexuals were persecuted, imprisoned, and sent to reeducation camps.

You may also be interested in...

From physical repression to cultural repression

Since its origins, socialism has tried to impose a model of society based on forced equalization. The tragic experiences of twentieth-century socialism demonstrated its economic and moral failure. However, far from disappearing, it reinvented itself by shifting the struggle from the economic sphere to the cultural arena.

Twenty-first-century socialism, unable to compete with economic liberalism, shifted its battle to the cultural field, creating neologisms that pathologize dissent through the invention of "phobias" and "hate crimes."

The socialist genocide

That wall that divided Berlin was built to prevent citizens from escaping in search of freedom. The forced imposition of the socialist model left millions dead due to famines such as the Holodomor, purges, executions, and forced labor in the Gulags.

In 1989, the wall was torn down by those seeking to escape the yoke of socialism, showing that socialism is a totalitarian and failed system.

From class struggle to cultural battle

With the triumph of economic liberalism after the Cold War, the left could no longer confront its economic model. It took refuge in the victimist rhetoric of oppressor-oppressed and shifted its criticism to the cultural arena, raising the banner of "excluded" minorities.

You may also be interested in...

The conservative as the last line of defense

The new left is more totalitarian than in the twentieth century: it continues to use the repressive apparatus of the State, but now battles in the intangible field of culture, censoring and criminalizing thought.

The truth is that twenty-first-century socialism no longer fears liberalism, because it can coexist with it as long as the market continues to function. Its true adversary today is conservatism, because it is the only one that doesn't resign itself to cultural demolition.

Only the right that understands that the decisive battle is linguistic, anthropological, moral, and civilizational—and not merely economic—can truly confront the inhuman project of the new left.